A Wrinkle in Time (2018)

[D82]

It looks like the first reactions are mixed:

http://www.slashfilm.com/a-wrinkle-in-time-early-buzz/

[JeanGreyForever]

Glad to hear the film is faithful to the source material though. Hopefully more critics will chime in.

[D82]

The lyric video for Sade's song "Flower of the Universe" has been released:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7b8hitvfoE[/youtube]

[ce1ticmoon]

The reviews are coming in and they're generally not good. Unfortunate, because I was really liking the trailers and clips I've been seeing.

That said, while I've not been much of a fan of most of Disney's live-action (and "live-action") output as of late as a whole, one of the ones I really did like (i.e. Tomorrowland) had pretty subpar reviews as well, so I'm still ready to head into this with an open mind.

[PatrickvD]

Such a shame. I hope this doesn’t discourage Disney from more original live action fare. The endless parade of remakes and sequels will only grow crazier.

[JeanGreyForever]

When was the last time that one of Disney's original live-action films actually did well? John Carter, The Lone Ranger, and Tomorrowland were all box office failures, if not outright disasters. If this doesn't gross as much as Disney expected, I wouldn't be surprised if they just stop bothering to make more original films, such as Artemis Fowl.

[Sotiris]

When was the last time that one of Disney's original live-action films actually did well?

Depends on your definition of "original". All the examples you mentioned (except for Tomorrowland) are based on popular IP that had at least one film adaptation before Disney's. Personally, I don't consider something original if it's based on a pre-existing property.

[JeanGreyForever]

When was the last time that one of Disney's original live-action films actually did well?

Depends on your definition of "original". All the examples you mentioned (except for Tomorrowland) are based on popular IP that had at least one film adaptation before Disney's. Personally, I don't consider something original if it's based on a pre-existing property.

By "original," I meant a property that Disney has not already become linked with before. Such as their live-action remakes which are all based off of Disney's animated films. John Carter, The Lone Ranger, and A Wrinkle in Time are all IPs that Disney has not adapted before until now. The upcoming Nutcracker film could possibly fit into this category as well, since one segment in Fantasia really doesn't equal a full-fledged adaptation imo.

[Sotiris]

Sci-fi has never been Disney's forte. If Disney wants to produce original live-action films, they need to take on a genre that complements their brand and that people already associate them with. Throwing everything at the wall to see if it sticks is not a wise strategy. A good place to start would be adapting fairy tales that WDAS hasn't already worked on.

[Disney's Divinity]

Well, the bad reviews are disappointing. I was hoping this book would finally get the great adaptation it deserves. I'm hoping a bad box office opening isn't about to come in. I won't be surprised either way. I said earlier that I could envision this film doing underwhelming business. Something about it reminded me of BFG and the Pete's Dragon remake.

[estefan]

I saw the movie a few days ago and I was fairly underwhelmed, though I admire its ambition, the visuals are really solid and Storm Reid is really good. She pretty much has the responsibility of carrying the whole film, because the two boys don't contribute all that much and the three "Mrs."s aren't in it as much as you would think. I should also mention I'm not particularly fond of the book and the film carries over the excessive exposition of the source material, despite being a movie and able to show things visually rather than telling. The pacing is also really off as it's simultaneously slow and also moves too quickly from set-piece to set-piece. The most disappointing element is how I didn't feel that emotionally invested in Meg's quest.

I will be curious to know how the family audience responds to it. I feel like fans of the book will enjoy "A Wrinkle in Time" the most as it's a fairly faithful adaptation and will probably give Ava DuVernay credit for trying with a book that might not be the easiest to adapt for the screen.

[D82]

Music videos for DJ Khaled and Demi Lovato's song "I Believe" and for "Warrior" by Chloe x Halle:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SphTGtDlhHw[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSZDe6CrfN4[/youtube]

You can listen to the rest of the songs on Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/album/0YgJxL6c ... hXe4MN1u0w

[JeanGreyForever]

Did anyone watch this yet? The reviews haven't been good at all, although I plan on watching it later this week.

[kbehm29]

I saw it this morning in IMAX. It’s always been one of my favorite books so I’ve been waiting for this day for a very long time. I slightly lowered my expectations after hearing some of the initial reviews.
It stays fairly faithful to the book. The things that they changed kind of made me angry a bit. The three Mrs W’s are great, Oprah included. They did not develop Calvin’s storyline enough. One of the things they changed from the book made the ending seem a bit disjointed. The visuals, of course, were amazing and almost worth seeing the movie alone.
If you haven’t read the book or read it recently you won’t be as emotionally attached. If you have read the book then of course you know it’s SUPPOSED to be quirky and kind of choppy.
I love the overall message of the movie which sort of centered on Meg’s sense of self worth. I would give it a solid 3.75/5, and encourage you all to see it to give it your own opinion. It was beautiful in IMAX.

[RyGuy]

Took the kids this morning. I’ve never read the book. Two were quite fidgety during most of the movie. As we left the theater my son said, “It wasn’t great. It was kind of ok.”

That pretty much sums up how I felt about it as well.

[TheSequelOfDisney]

I've been a fan of the novel since I was eight, so sixteen years now. It's the book that got me into reading, and it holds a very special place in my heart. After the very disappointing TV film, I was quite looking forward to a new, and hopefully better, adaptation. I did not find that here.

The pacing is generally off for most of the film, with the first and third acts racing by and a slow second act. The acting is surprisingly subpar (Chris Pine and Gugu Mbatha-Raw are the best of the bunch, but they have very little screen time). A new character was pointlessly added, while a friendly face was (very sadly) nowhere to be seen--no matter Jennifer Lee's excuses; likewise, new scenes brought little to the table. A few important concepts were left unexplained, details were rushed through, and some significant characterizations and plots were either removed or altered.

The pop songs that appear in the film are quite jarring, and Ramin Djawadi's score is forgettable. The cinematography and visual effects are decent to a degree, but camera angles and shots went awry (someone needs to learn the art of the close-up and how to effectively use it). The modernization of setting and dialog take away from the timelessness the novel continues to preserve.

While the novel isn't overly complex, the complexities that are present have been dumbed down; this could've been a smart film, but, for some reason, that path wasn't chosen. The result is a fairly boring film--definitely for adults and probably so for teens and children. The basic story is present but told so poorly that the refocused message of self-love and self-worth, while admirable and important, aren't as inspiring as DuVernay intended. With the film's attempt to be so universal, there's actually little with which to connect. I just don't think DuVernay was skilled enough as a director to helm this film, and maybe Jennifer Lee shouldn't write novel adaptations.

I know it's not fair to directly compare the novel to the film as they are separate entities, but they're also obviously attached to each other and it's difficult to not analyze them together. I should praise the film's diversity, but I'd be more inclined to do so if the actors chosen did a better job. Still, I guess it should be noted that representation, even though lackluster, should be recognized.

I told myself to go in with very low expectations, but I guess I should've actually went with zero expectations. What a missed opportunity.

[Sotiris]

A Wrinkle in Time earned $33.3 million in its opening weekend which is slightly above Disney's 'original' tentpoles that have underperformed this decade. On the bright side, the movie was produced on a significantly lower production budget which means it'll have a higher profit margin than them.

Opening Weekend Earnings (Domestic)

A Wrinkle in Time: $33.3
The BFG: $18.7
Tomorrowland: $33.0
The Lone Ranger: $29.2
John Carter: $30.1
The Sorcerer's Apprentice: $17.6
Prince of Persia: $30.0

[JeanGreyForever]

I watched the film and I liked it enough, but didn't love it. The pop songs felt very out of place and I didn't care much for the humor either. I've heard people give other films, like Star Wars, flack for ill-placed or unfunny humor, but I'd say this is the only film I've seen recently that suffered from that. All the "jokes" fell flat.

The film diverted too much from the book for my taste. I found myself missing scenes or characters or not liking different takes on what they went with (such as making the Happy Medium male which didn't seem to serve any purpose). Even having read the book, I found the movie confusing so I can't imagine it would make much more sense to someone who isn't familiar with the story. The tesseract needed to be explained more imo and certain scenes should have been drawn out more.

I know it isn't vogue to place religion in children's films anymore, but I think this film could have benefited from that since it was the heart of the book. Maybe even secularize the religious themes a bit more, rather than going with the generic good vs evil, since the It wasn't well done imo.

The acting was fine for the most part. I liked the main actress, and Calvin was ok, even if he felt unnecessary unlike the book version. His one "plotline" wasn't very well-done imo, especially when he had a better backstory in the book. Charles Wallace's actor wasn't very good imo, but I expect that with most child actors. I'm more disappointed in how his character was written so differently from how he was in the book, rather than the actual performance. All the adults, such as the parents and the angels but not really angels, were great. If nothing else, the film is worth watching for the visuals.

[skippy]

Thought the movie was awful, possibly worse than the tv movie version if possible.

[DisneyEra]

They moved Ralph Breaks the Internet/Cancelled Gigantic for this? I know Disney has money to burn, but this is getting ridiculous! They should invest that money in new Animated Features. If your film isn't apart of the MCU/Star Wars or a Live-Action Animated reboot chances are your feature is going to bomb. Whoever at Disney is producing Artemis Fowl should be very worried

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/lone-los ... 38977.html